|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Batman vs superman in 70mm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 02-20-2016 10:21 AM
Remember though when you are doing calculations a few things...
Is the 35mm print straight off the original negative, or is it from a dupe negative? There is resolution loss with the dupe of course.
What kind of printer was it made on? As an excellent example, back in the old days it wasn't uncommon for me to have 2 prints of the same movie, one from Deluxe in LA and one from Deluxe in Canada. The LA print was ALWAYS and without fail vastly superior, even though both were from an equivalent dupe negative.
What projector is the print being ran on? Even a tiny bounce in the image will cost you resolution.
What kind of lamphouse, size of bulb, cooling and heat filters are in place? Again, that can cost you resolution.
What kind of lenses are being used? If anamorphic, did the installing technician actually adjust the astigmatism through the lens, or did he set it based upon the numbers on the anamorphic? That can cost you major resolution.
This sort of thing goes on and on.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-20-2016 12:57 PM
quote: Ari Leedsw
You are assuming the worst case in each step of the 35mm process.
No he's not, really.
A Kodak Vision series camera negative that is properly exposed will have, as you say, 4k worth of resolvable information, maybe a smidgen over. A first state fine-grain interpositive about the same. Anything beyond that, an internegative or, god forbid, a release print, not a chance, even if carefully made. This is why many studio home video divisions won't do a 4K scan from anything farther removed than the interpositive. Ever seen a 4K scan from a release print? I have. Looks like a VHS tape.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ari Leedsw
Film Handler
Posts: 53
From: Stoughton, MA
Registered: Feb 2016
|
posted 02-20-2016 01:08 PM
YEAH really. If they didn't go with cheap and established infrastructure, they would be laser-recording straight onto the print stock, which can probably hold 5 or 6K.
Take the amount of money put into DLP research and put it into a film recorder.
They're using technology that's essentially from the 1970s and it's still better than what they call "IMAX" today.
Print stock has a speed of about 5 or 6. The slowest negative film (50) far grainier, resolves more than 4K.
The whole reason they went to four generations of copying (it used to be just two) was because they got greedy/lazy and started churning out thousands of prints, and let quality control standards become non-existent.
This high-volume, low standard operation no longer exists.
Contact printing film is about as low-tech as you can get, shining a colored light through a piece of film in contact with another piece of film.
Simple and incredibly hard to screw up.
Processing, not so simple. :-D
EDIT: Are you seriously trying to like a 35mm release print to 360i?
I HAVE scanned 35mm release prints, with scanners designed to punch through the high blacks of slides/positive film, and, I assure you, it resolves more than a half megapixel.
The only limiting thing with 2383 print stock is the dynamic range. What you see is what you get, and there is not really any hidden information, so if the printing is too dark or too light, information isn't there, it's lost.
That's on the labs though. A properly-timed print has 5-6 stops of range and looks very nice indeed.
"Showprints" are 35mm prints from the camera negative, and they look just as good as any intermediate. The limitation is on the scans, not so much on the film itself, but again, with the high contrast, there isn't as much range on a print as on a low-contrast intermediate.
Kodak used to make a low-contrast print film for TV transfers/scans back in the day.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ari Leedsw
Film Handler
Posts: 53
From: Stoughton, MA
Registered: Feb 2016
|
posted 02-20-2016 02:10 PM
So a 35mm print, at $2,500 to print and distribute shows a LACK OF CONCERN by the studio for the theatrical experience?
Don't you consider that a little hyperbolic?
As I indicated above, the issue with prints is SCANNER DEFICIENCY for the most part, although I admit, due to the high contrast, there are only 5-6 stops of latitude between bring and dark.
A lower-contrast material, like the camera negative, or even an intermediate, holds far more range.
But strictly speaking, as it pertains to resolution, print film resolves HIGHER line pairs / millimeter than any negative film does.
There is some loss from copying, sure, but this is basically the same material as you get with a photographic print, coated onto film. It is very very slow and therefore very very fine-grained.
Easily over 5,000 lines of native resolution can be written onto it.
And yet somehow 2K DCIs are "caring about the customer" and this is not?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 02-22-2016 01:42 AM
There have been many studies about print resolution done, some of them even by Kodak.
Full gate 4 perf Super 35mm 50D camera negative is around 5k worth of perceivable resolution. Since MOST films don't shoot 50D and an even greater amount shoot 3 perf or 2 perf, most 35mm camera negative is LESS THAN 4k of perceivable resolution.
The moment you digitize film, you're basically throwing away a substantial amount of data. Yes scanners are pretty darn good today, but it's impossible to grab each record (RGB) separately for complete manipulation and then put them back to film again OR project properly. In fact, CMOS imagers no matter what even in RAW, still have less Red and Blue data per pixel then motion picture film does. You'd have to use three imagers with a beam splitter and nobody really does that, single imagers with a Bayer pattern is good enough. So the mere idea of digitizing and scanning back to film for theatrical presentation is kind of silly. You're loosing substantial quality by doing so and you still run through the same problems as a photochemical finish.
To make a 35mm print of anything with audio and color, you need to make a duplicate of the negative which is an interpositive. This is the new "master" of the film and from that interpositive, you will color time to an internegative. The soundtrack will be added to the internegative and it's what you use to strike prints with. So before you even strike a print, you're at 3rd generation. Then most companies will make a duplicate of the internegative to strike prints from because it's pretty much your new master. So most prints are 4th or 5th generation.
The studies I've seen, put theatrical prints through the standard workflow at around 750 vertical lines of perceivable resolution. Prints struck DIRECTLY OFF THE CAMERA NEGATIVE are still only around 1500 vertical lines. These tests were done by shooting a test pattern and projecting a still image of that pattern through a low-intensity projector and eventually running a loop through a 35mm projector. The white paper is pretty conclusive and even though it uses older stocks then we have today, it's pretty damning in regards to 35mm being lower resolution then MOST digital projection.
Now, if you shoot an entire film in full gate anamorphic at 50D and strike a limited amount of release prints off the internegative, you will probably get a bit higher resolution because you started so high in the first place. Optical blow-up's to 70mm are also going to deliver more resolution as well. Films like "The Master" and "interstellar" which were both mixes of 35/70, looked really good on 70mm. To my eye, they looked better then standard digital projection by far, mostly because the color pallet is so rich on photochemically finished films, something we've come to forget with digital which flattens everything.
With all that said, if this whole thing about Superman v Batman being released in 70mm is true, they are absolutely going to strike an internegative from a computer laser out from the final master. The likelihood they finish the film in 4k is slim but possible. My guess is they will because there is no reason to print 2k 70mm what a waste. With that being said, if this whole thing goes through, it could still be a massive disappointment. I saw 'The Force Awakens" on 35mm and it looked horrible. It looked like they scanned out the digital file and said screw it, that's fine. It was missing any and all contrast. Plus, some shots were blown out on the film, but looked fine digital, which is clearly a problem with the film-out. This is why I'm concerned about yet another "heavy digitally manipulated" movie being scanned out to film, I mean what's the point? Nobody gets the idea that photochemical finish is what makes these movies look so great, it's not the simple fact they're shot and projected on film, that's only a SMALL part. The idea that computers were not involved, really makes them look amazing. Even with Interstellar, the film was finished photochemically. The special effects were done in 8k (very rare) and scanned back to film at the same resolution, so the quality was second to none.
Unfortunately no matter what we do as filmmakers or theater owners, the cinema is dying. Gimmicks like Laser projection, ATMOS audio and 3D/4D are the final straws to get people into the seats. There isn't much more that hasn't been tried and theaters are running out of time as they spent millions constantly upgrading their new technology to keep them current. We pay more today for entertainment then we have in all of cinema history! Yet, the studio's haven't woken up to the fact, they're not truly offering anything special at the cinema. Content in most cases is worse then pay television (HBO/Cinemax) and Web (Netflix/Amazon). Theater content turns around so quickly to video, it's almost irrelevant it had a theatrical run. Most people wait for home release and likewise, the theaters loose quite a bit of business. Sure 2015 was a record breaking year for profits, but that's because we had a few huge franchise films and they were all in 3D for $20+ a ticket. What needs to happen is the cinema needs to turn back into a special place to watch content you can't see at home. Motion picture film is part of that solution because you can't watch a 35 or 70mm print at home. Plus, dramatic/creative/artistic projects shot on celluloid should be projected on celluloid and have limited runs to draw audiences. Studio's should start making more 10M films and road-showing them across the country for limited release only. Make the cinema an experience that can't be seen at home. If you wish to see the movie ever, you've gotta come onto the roadshow. These are things that will help draw people back to the cinema, but without them, we are literally seeing the death of cinema right in front of our eyes, which is very sad.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
. I'd take 4K over 3D any day.
Printer-friendly view of this topic